from the ridiculous dept

It's that time again, when the Librarian of Congress and the Register of Copyright announce their triennial "rulemaking" on DMCA exemptions for the anti-circumvention clause. Just the fact that they have to do this every three years should show how ridiculous the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA is. Basically, it's so screwed up that, every three years, the Librarian of Congress gets to randomly decide when the law can be ignored. Maybe... instead of doing that, you fix the law? There are some interesting exemptions, though they're limited. For example, people making "noncommercial" remix videos can apparently use clips from DVDs with specific limitations.

Motion pictures, as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System, where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary because reasonably available alternatives, such as noncircumventing methods or using screen capture software as provided for in alternative exemptions, are not able to produce the level of high-quality content required to achieve the desired criticism or comment on such motion pictures, and where circumvention is undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures for the purpose of criticism or comment in the following instances: (i) in noncommercial videos; (ii) in documentary films; (iii) in nonfiction multimedia ebooks offering film analysis; and (iv) for educational purposes in film studies or other courses requiring close analysis of film and media excerpts, by college and university faculty, college and university students, and kindergarten through twelfth grade educators. For purposes of this exemption, "noncommercial videos" includes videos created pursuant to a paid commission, provided that the commissioning entity's use is noncommercial.

In explaining this, they specifically call out the examples of remix videos as to why this should be allowed:

Creators of noncommercial videos provided the most extensive record to support the need for higher-quality source material. Based on the video evidence presented, the Register is able to conclude that diminished quality likely would impair the criticism and comment contained in noncommercial videos. For example, the Register is able to perceive that Buffy vs Edward and other noncommercial videos would suffer significantly because of blurring and the loss of detail in characters' expression and sense of depth.

Of course, it's not all good news. Public Knowledge had put forth a request for an exemption for being able to rip legally purchased DVDs for the sake of watching them on a computer or tablet. This is something that a ton of people already do, but which technically violates the anti-circumvention part of the DMCA. Unfortunately, this request was rejected -- even though it's already acknowledged as legal to do the same thing with CDs -- and, as PK's Michael Weinberg points out, even movie studio bosses seem to recognize that it should be legal to rip your own movies:

And the RIAA and the MPAA agree with you. In 2005, their lawyer (now the Solicitor General of the United States) assured the Supreme Court that "The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now, and it's been on their Website for some time now, that it's perfectly lawful to take a CD that you've purchased, upload it onto your computer, put it onto your iPod."

Movie executives agree as well. Mitch Singer, the Chief Technology Officer of Sony Pictures Entertainment explained to author Robert Levine that the idea for the movie industry's UltraViolet program evolved out of Singer's own frustration with transferring movies between PCs in his home.

So what is the reasoning for the rejection? Well, they argue that space shifting might not be legal after all, despite all of the above. They claim that key cases involving the VCR and the mp3 player -- both of which were found to be legal -- do not "provide the legal basis for a broad declaration that space shifting of audiovisual works is a noninfringing use." Think about that for a second.

In 2006 and 2010, the Librarian of Congress had permitted users to unlock their phones to take them to a new carrier. Now that's coming to an end. While the new rules do contain a provision allowing phone unlocking, it comes with a crippling caveat: the phone must have been "originally acquired from the operator of a wireless telecommunications network or retailer no later than ninety days after the effective date of this exemption." In other words, phones you already have, as well as those purchased between now and next January, can be unlocked. But phones purchased after January 2013 can only be unlocked with the carrier's permission.

Re: Re: Re:

Re: Re:

Yeah, and when they demand the media back (be it DVD, cd, of book), I will make damn sure to wipe my ass with them, very thoroughly, before packaging them up and sending them back. And I encourage every law-abiding citizen to do the same when either the MAFIAA or their goons (the US Gooberment) tried to take back what we rightfully purchased.

Re: Re:

When they demand the "licensed" material back, be it DVD, CD, or book, I will make sure to clean my exhaust port with each and every one of them before sending them back. I can only hope they'll catch something from it, too.

Re:

Most of us do. I use My Movies for Windows Media Center to get all my movies onto my storage server so I never have to get up to put a disc in a player again (apart from the initial rip), because lets face it, that seems like a perfectly sensible and reasonable thing for a consumer to be able to do, but must use a 3rd party program to break the encryption in order to do it.

Re:

That's the joke. Many people do ignore this idiocy. This is just a report about what you're allowed to say regarding the Emperor's attire. Telling us that we can't copy our own DVDs and format shift is as effective as telling us that we can't point out that the Emperor is completely butt nekkid.

Re: Re:

> is as effective as telling us that we can't
> point out that the Emperor is completely butt nekkid

Well, actually, if you consider the original story, a major lesson was that the vast majority of people were too afraid to (be the first person to) point that out. Which only emphasizes the great value to society which anonymity on the net provides --- with it, anyone can be a "little boy".

Re: Re: Re:

a crucial lesson i took away from a speech on the tee vee box machine by an activist (i think kathy kelly) was the importance of 'small voices'...

that one ne'er-do-well who works up the gumption, and with a weak and wavering voice says 'Now, wait a minute...', and then another has the courage to say 'Yeah, what he/she said...', and that small crack in the facade gives comfort to everyone else speaking up to say 'YEAH, WTF is going on here...'

out of such seemingly small and insignificant squeakings, great movements are born...

Re: Re: Re:

a major lesson was that the vast majority of people were too afraid to (be the first person to) point that out

But people not talking about it didn't make the emperor any less naked, or mean that people couldn't see it.

A fitting analogy then for an equally stupid restriction - we're supposed to pretend that DVD encryption is a securing technology when everyone on the planet apart from the **AA knows otherwise whether talking about it or not.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

They built a gate but forgot to put a fence on either side of the gate, so people can just walk around the side and bypass the gate. But we're supposed to pretend that the gate being there keeps us out or that whatever the gatekeeper wants to charge for admittance to our own culture on the other side of the gate is reason enough to waste our tax money forcing people to pretend that the gate is there for a good reason.

Nonsense

> In other words, phones you already have,
> as well as those purchased between now
> and next January, can be unlocked.
> But phones purchased after January
> 2013 can only be unlocked with the
> carrier's permission.

I don't care what the Librarian of Congress says. If I buy a phone, it's my phone and I can do anything I want with it. I'm not renting or licensing the phone from anyone else and they don't have any say over what I do with it.

So while you may own the phone, you license the boot loader and all software, and they do have some pretty tight restrictions. No thank you Apple.

Then of course there is that pesky TOS you signed along with the contract when you got your phone for far less than retail. It has its share of restrictions as well.

Let me make it really simple to understand. You don't OWN anything anymore. At least not anything that has a microchip in it. However, companies are more than willing to grant you a license if you are willing to part with your dollars. They of course reserve the right to change the deal at any time, for any reason with or without notice. If you do not agree to the new terms you may stop using the product immediately.

The day is coming when the people are going to rise up and say enough! OR they will bury their head in the sand and live with whatever crap someone sets in front of them.

Re: "live with whatever crap someone sets in front of them"

I can't resist a comment on that phrase.

You are WAY behind the times, WAY too optimistic.

People now actively seek out crap, compulsively, full time, wallow in it, shun and deride anything decent; they'll never get off the couch. There's a fellow by name of Dick_Helmet who bragged of watching 3 screens of sports at once, as if an accomplishment, not shameful. And he brags of being an expert on beers so no doubt dulls his mind every way that he can.

Re: Re: "live with whatever crap someone sets in front of them"

I guess that could be considered rising up. After all you can't put everyone in jail.

There really is no need to actively seek crap out (though I am certain some do) We are already hip deep in crap. All the excessive, over reaching laws, crazy licensing structures...

People must be related to frogs. You know the old adage; If you place a frog in hot water, it will jump out. If you place a frog in room temperature water and slowly raise the temperature it will cook to death.

Re: Re: Nonsense

This whole ruling is for Apple and Microsoft only (iOS and Win8 phones).

Android phones on the other hand can be legally rooted, and therefore allowing the rooted phone to be switched between carriers at whim.

Why Android phones are ok you ask? Because they use open source software so no EULA that can restrict you.

The contract on the other hand is the problem and always has been even with the legality of rooting your phone. The TOS though has no bearing unless it is part of the contract.

Basically what it boils down to is that the rest of the world, dependant on the contract (or lack thereof) can do what they want with ANY phone but the USA will only be legally allowed to do this with Android phones when they come out of contract (easier to buy your phones outright).

To me this is a great marketing idea for Samsung, HTC, Huawei, etc where they can say - no matter what the carrier wants - "Hey - want to switch providers at some time? Buy Android" in other words this will harm Apple (and to a certain extent Win Phones) more than it will harm other manufacturers.

Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

Did you not see the article earlier this week about the person with the e-reader?

If I recall correctly they remotely wiped the device. Depriving the purchaser, the use of the device and of all content placed on the device. Then repeatedly told the purchaser to F off.

So what the purchaser ends up with is a device that won't work. Sort of like the bully that takes your lunch, spills it out all over the floor steps on it and walks away. It's still your lunch, but not worth eating anymore.

Re: Re: Re: Nonsense

Did you replace the Bootloader as well? If there is any scrap of firmware left in any part of the phone then you are still subject to the EUKA. If you powered the phone on before you replaced the Bootloader and OS, then you agreed to the EULA, which probably has some stupid clause about not modifying the firmware...

Re:

This has got to be the most ridiculous thing I've ever heard. I guess AirPlay and DNLA are now illegal as that is time-shifting as well. Let's ban all TVs, home theater receivers, and media streamers. Where the hell were the technology companies during these proceedings? This effects just about everyone.

Librarian found that there are more unlocked phones on the market than there were three years ago, and that most wireless carriers have liberal policies for unlocking their handsets. As a result, the Librarian of Congress decided that it should no longer be legal to unlock your cell phone without the carrier's permission.

So, what they are saying is you now have to get the wireless carrier's permission because when that permission was meaningless, they frequently gave it.

Ridiculous!

How on Earth can cases and situations be arbitrarily decided as legal or illegal every 3 years? That means that tons of products produced within a span of 3 years may be perfectly legal then but suddenly become illegal due to a random change in the law? Why take something people have been doing for a while now, something that people have taken for granted as legal such as ripping DVDs, and suddenly make it illegal?

Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!

But The Gestapo isn't going to break down your door for transferring between devices. Nor is it immoral to do so. Just follow the Borland rule: treat data just as you would a book, use it all you want on own devices, DON'T COPY IT FOR OTHERS.

I hope you all note that this clear rule doesn't even get near the question of ripped files in "file lockers" for anyone to download. That lack is a good measure of how far your piratey views are from fair use or legality.

Re: Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!

Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!

"treat data just as you would a book"

Copy relevant passages for reference and reuse? Sell it when I've finished with it or swap for another title? Loan it to friends, family and strangers if I want to? Use it for kindling or toilet paper if I get desperate?

Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!

Re: Okay, you've got a clear rule. Now follow it!

The future you are ignoring is one I never want to be part of.
You say it's ok to ignore this ruling because no one is going to bust down my door will lead to exactly this thing.
You try to come off as law abiding and in favor of the rights holders but, you very carefully ignore the impact these situations/rulings/laws lead to. I cannot imagine the loss of civil liberties you so carefully put a blind eye to is ok with you or your family.
While I agree that rights holders need to get their due, we fundamentally disagree on the net results on civil liberties.
I admit I am an old man and these rulings will not impact me in the long run. I do worry about my grandchildren and this country.
I wish you could at least see this point of view when you so callously pontificate on the importance of these topics.

Treat it like a book, as outlined Borland Turbo Pascal, ca. 1983.

Coincidentally, I was waiting for a copyright piece, but this one ain't right. Still, here's a bit to tease:

) Possession of authorized physical media is license to access the content any number of times (which can be one-at-a-time library use, yet not "public" display). In the absence of physical media, there's no clear right to access content, only perhaps an authorized temporary permission. But at no time does possession of digital data confer a right to reproduce it outside of the terms and conditions as for physical media, no matter how easy it is to do so.

Re:

It's unbelievable that entertainment companies advertise their "licensing" as "buying" when, according to them, it is nothing like buying. When I "buy" a TV show on iTunes, nowhere, except in a super-long Terms of Service that I clicked on more than a year ago when I first installed iTunes, am I told that I am merely "licensing" it and that circumvention of their DRM goes against their terms. Same goes for DVDs and Blu-rays; I have to squint to find that clause that says that I am merely "licensing" it for "home use only".

Why do they continue to mislead the public into thinking that they own what they paid for, instead of telling them straight on that they're just licensing it? It would be more sincere and forthcoming to replace that "BUY" button in the iTunes window with "LICENSE".

Re: Re:

"It's unbelievable that entertainment companies advertise their 'licensing' as 'buying' when, according to them, it is nothing like buying. When I 'buy' a TV show on iTunes, nowhere, except in a super-long Terms of Service that I clicked on more than a year ago when I first installed iTunes, am I told that I am merely 'licensing' it and that circumvention of their DRM goes against their terms. Same goes for DVDs and Blu-rays; I have to squint to find that clause that says that I am merely 'licensing' it for 'home use only'."

I know, right? The corporates falsely presume that by trading words, i.e. 'Buy' > 'License', they're redefining ownership vs temporary permission to use. When you pay for a product, you become the rightful owner once that transaction is complete, not merely a "licensed user" or whatever jargon they're spewing. Any attempt by the seller to revoke ownership or otherwise impede access/usage is to defraud the consumer (e.g. the recent Amazon debacle).

"Why do they continue to mislead the public into thinking that they own what they paid for, instead of telling them straight on that they're just licensing it? It would be more sincere and forthcoming to replace that 'BUY' button in the iTunes window with 'LICENSE'."

The very fact that these elites sit in a room, deliberate and decide what we're allowed to do with the stuff we purchase is a joke. No, I don't purchase music via iTunes because I'm not paying a preminum for a truncated 320kbps .mp3 file. Further, I don't trust Apple and for good reason: due to a obscure alteration to their privacy policy, they've granted themselves the extraordinary power to track you should you elect to use their service. No thanks, I'll stick with physical discs.

Re: Re: Re:

You're right of course. The sad thing is that these restrictions, as the Techdirt community has always pointed out, do more to harm than encourage business. I currently live in Australia, but spent a few years in the United States. So often, I wanted to get DVDs only to be discouraged, knowing that the region lockout on my laptop would prevent me from enjoying said DVDs in Australia. I also wanted to gift digital music to my friends, but I couldn't because they didn't reside in the US.

It's like they didn't want my money at all.

On the other hand, something like Mojang's Minecraft was free from these regional rubbish, so I happily bought a copy for my sister and would gift it to any of my close friends who would want it. The fact that they ALLOWED my to pay them ensured they got my money.

It's been said far too often, the reason copyright infringement is so rampant is because they offer a superior product (DRM-free) at a price (free) that people can afford.

Re: Re: Re: Re:

Speaking of games/software, I don't bother with them anymore unless it's freeware. The only time I get a physical VG anymore is if someone else gives one to me as a gift. I used to be a hardcore gamer; I've been gaming ever since I was tot playing ColecoVision, Atari and Vectrex. But this once-great industry has been fully exploited by the corporates, producing the same garbage again and again. The final nail in the coffin would be all the microtransactions (devs withholding content in order to squeeze every last drop of profit), DRM garbage, mandatory online, and attempting to circumvent the first-sale doctrine. The game devs seem bankrupt of good ideas, too. How many more FPS do we need with the carboard cut-out marine with the wooden mannerisms, spewing horrible one-liners? How many more RPGs do we need with either a medieval or the sci-fi quasi-futuristic setting, featuring the same bland 'save the world' plot and the same outdated game engine from the late 90's? I could go on all day (don't get me started).

Of course region-locking is just a pathetic means of attempting to lock consumers into each respective territory, but there are ways around it. The way I see it, if you purchased something, whether foreign or domestic, it's yours to use and you don't need a company's permission. Next thing you know people will be paying a premium for a specifically limited amount of listens to a song or views of a movie before the content holders take it down and demand more. Oh wait... they already do. That's why I'll never trust anything which I do not have FULL control over, stored on my computer or on a physical item.

You do not own your microwave. You liscense it from the company. You must periodically download the microwave terms of service, or the microwave will refuse to operate. Do not jailbreak your microwave, or you will void the warranty.

Ok, so they haven't done it to the microwaves yet. But how long do you think it will take before companies start 'licensing' TVs?

Re:

Even discounting the fact they usually only offer digital copies in premium, over-priced packages, or the fact that these digital copies are poor low-res substitutes of the stuff you get in the Blu-rays themselves, the fact of the matter is that these digital copies are still DRM-protected. As such, I can only play them on a number of approved media players. They don't really seem like proper products in themselves, just a small bone the media companies decide to throw to shut detractors up.

Re: Re:

Not only that, but expire. One of the first Blu-rays I ever bought was Hancock, bought it new off of Amazon. It came with a Digital Copy...that had expired. Even if I had been interested in the DC, I wouldn't have been able to use it at all.

Phone Locking Scam

Phone locking is probably one of the best price fixing scams EVER. It allows for the manufacturers of mobile phones to artificially inflate the price of their phones by having the carriers subsidize the bulk of the cost and then milk the consumer with lengthy contracts.

Apple highlights this. If you look at the price of an iPhone 5 in the UK £799 and the cost of the top iPad with mobile £659, you have to ask; in what world does this make sense?

The price of phones would drop like a stone if that price fixing scam were ever to end.

No, CD ripping has not been acknowledged as legal

Re: DVD ripping, Mike said "it's already acknowledged as legal to do the same thing with CDs".

Is it, though? The RIAA website actually only ever said that ripping "won't usually raise concerns". That's not the same thing as it being legal. There's no explicit exception in the law, and no court has actually weighed in on it.

The closest a court came to ruling on it was in RIAA v. Diamond Multimedia, but that case was only about whether the manufacturer of the Rio (iPod predecessor) was required to pay royalties to the music industry under the AHRA-mandated system that imposes a levy on DAT recorders and blank "audio" CD-Rs. The answer was no, because the Rio was not technically a "recording device" as defined by the AHRA. The court, citing the Congressional Record, did comment that space-shifting (from a hard drive to a Rio-like device, at least) appears to have been intended by the AHRA. However, the final language of the AHRA only ended up permitting copying with or to certain digital "recording" devices or media, which the court ruled did not include the Rio, and which almost certainly does not include hard drives in general. And since the comment wasn't pivotal in the court's decision, it's unlikely to be interpreted in future cases as an actual ruling on that issue.

When circumventing CD copy protection was proposed for the 2006 round of DMCA exemptions, the RIAA argued that "creating a back-up copy of a music CD is not a non-infringing use, for reasons similar to those the Register canvassed in detail in her 2003 determination that back-up copying of DVDs cannot be treated as noninfringing. [...] there is no general exception to the reproduction right to allow back-up copying."

Further, RIAA boss Cary Sherman, when asked on NPR about Don Verrilli's oft-quoted from the MGM v. Grokster case ("The record companies, my clients, have said, for some time now..."), insisted that Verrilli "misspoke" and that the RIAA has never actually taken a stand on the legality of ripping. When the interviewer asked him point-blank whether ripping was legal, Sherman was evasive, only stating that they had not yet taken anyone to court over that issue alone. Listen to his weasly blather here: Rip This and Sue That (NPR)

Re: No, CD ripping has not been acknowledged as legal

These are the same people who get paid off the artists' backs in order to live a life of luxury, looking for any loophole in the law they can exploit (or sending out their lobbyists to create new ones) in order to extract as much money from the public as they possibly can. So, really, this is as absurd as taking moral lessons from Hollywood.

Re: No, CD ripping has not been acknowledged as legal

I don't care, they can copy protect, say it is illegal and bla bla bla, but I still rip it anyway.

I got my hands on the 5 seasons of Stargate Atlantis, there are 35 DVD's(with 250 GB of data) in that collection which I ripped to a 2 TB HDD.

Audio CD's I don't even bother ripping anymore, I have 3 CD's of music, which I don't listen to, those 3 CD's have zero copy protections because the Red Book defining the standard for audio CD's is so old, any copy protection implemented today probably will not play somewhere because it is not following the standard thus causing problems, this is why there are so few audio CD's copy protected, not that the industry didn't try to change that, they tried new standards that nobody bought, they tried the DRM like Sony did with their rootkit with code stolen from open source projects and failed and today the other schemes that exist are not good enough to even stop anybody from dragging and dropping the files to a PC.

Re: No, CD ripping has not been acknowledged as legal

When circumventing CD copy protection was proposed for the 2006 round of DMCA exemptions

I've never seen an audio CD that had copy protection requiring circumvention (the Sony rootkit doesn't count, as it doesn't require circumvention, just that you don't have autorun enabled -- which you shouldn't have anyway.)

If I pay for a movie DVD, it is illegal for me to rip it to my computer and watch it on my Ipod. That is why when someone equates "illegal" with "wrong", I laugh at their naivete and brainwashed sheep mind.

Re:

A sad thing I have noticed is that often times when people say it's "wrong" to do something, what they really mean is that it's "illegal". I literally had someone tell me that he knew it was "wrong" to rip DVDs and circumvent the DRM on them, which was awkward because it didn't seem like a big deal to him. I guess what he really meant was that it was illegal.

"Motion pictures, as defined in 17 U.S.C. § 101, on DVDs that are lawfully made and acquired and that are protected by the Content Scrambling System, where the person engaging in circumvention believes and has reasonable grounds for believing that circumvention is necessary because reasonably available alternatives, such as noncircumventing methods or using screen capture software as provided for in alternative exemptions, are not able to produce the level of high-quality content required to achieve the desired criticism or comment on such motion pictures, and where circumvention is undertaken solely in order to make use of short portions of the motion pictures for the purpose of criticism or comment in the following instances: (i) in noncommercial videos; (ii) in documentary films; (iii) in nonfiction multimedia ebooks offering film analysis; and (iv) for educational purposes in film studies or other courses requiring close analysis of film and media excerpts, by college and university faculty, college and university students, and kindergarten through twelfth grade educators. For purposes of this exemption, "noncommercial videos" includes videos created pursuant to a paid commission, provided that the commissioning entity's use is noncommercial."

That is one long run-on sentence! how did the person writing this get through Grade School?

Uh oh

The part where it talks about video game ripping, console modding pisses me off... I guess I will go to jail for downloading roms I already own and ripping the game DVDs that I also owned. All I want to do is hack it, and have fun. Never to hurt the companies. Especially for beta roms that were never in stores.

I don't think I ever heard of something like this before: "Members, Staff, everyone, I have a sad message to report, we are about to go bankrupt. Everyone: Why?! Because some people are modding there own console and there video game. We have lost so many sales." And I don't think that will ever connect to that.

Anyway, if I own my thing I bought it's mine.. Not there's. Best thing to do is ignore what they say for your rights. :/
Even if it's illegal I guess. Lot's of people need to stand up more.

But if people go to jail for this, then wow.. What are you in for?: "Umm, I killed a man" "I robbed someone's house" "I just played a rom on my computer". You can clearly see, something does not fit here.